[STC]

Anyone here using Ambiophonics for their dedicated setup? After many
years of trying with physical barrier between the speakers to
implement ambio I am now using DSP method and very much pleased with
the sound.

It did let me down on a few albums but overall excellent recordimgs
especially live Jazz and classical music sounded very much closer to
being there. I am wondering why it hasn't caught up. I find that
serious music lovers are so reluctant to even experiment with it and
hardly any serious discussing about it in RAHE. I find a lot of
critism but hardly anyone ever attempted to listen in a proper setup
other than a few quick trials using PC which hardly a true
representation of what it could do in a proper room setup.

I have seen some contributors compared it to Carver's Holo amplifiers
and others but could not find any constructive critism of the weakness
of Ambiophonics except for the sitting arrangements.

Looking forward to hear your feedback on Ambiophonics from you guys.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"STC" wrote in message
...
Anyone here using Ambiophonics for their dedicated setup? After many
years of trying with physical barrier between the speakers to
implement ambio I am now using DSP method and very much pleased with
the sound.

It did let me down on a few albums but overall excellent recordimgs
especially live Jazz and classical music sounded very much closer to
being there. I am wondering why it hasn't caught up. I find that
serious music lovers are so reluctant to even experiment with it and
hardly any serious discussing about it in RAHE. I find a lot of
critism but hardly anyone ever attempted to listen in a proper setup
other than a few quick trials using PC which hardly a true
representation of what it could do in a proper room setup.

I have seen some contributors compared it to Carver's Holo amplifiers
and others but could not find any constructive critism of the weakness
of Ambiophonics except for the sitting arrangements.

Looking forward to hear your feedback on Ambiophonics from you guys.

The simplest explanation of why it hasn't caught on is that it requires
additional complexity beyond normal stereo listening. You have to purchase
the components (not heavily advertised) to convert the signals, and you have
to sit in the sweet spot to make it work. Not real suitable for sharing the
playback experience.

Gary Eickmeier

[STC]

It is not exactly true that we need a separate component. I have tried with=
IPod and PC using their ambiophonics software or players with good results=
.. Currently, the low cost component is about US120 and it is good enough fo=
r my SACD player without any perceivable loss of resolution.

I have to agree that the best performance is sitting at the sweet spot but =
then even stereo setup requires a sweet spot. As I was listening to Sheffie=
lds Test CD -Walkaround, I noticed that the centre was way off to the left.=
I never noticed this flaw in the stereo setup before.

If our purpose of High Fidelity is the ability to bring out the best from t=
he recording then why are we ignoring the obvious improvement. We forego th=
e the convenience of integrated amplifiers for separate power and preamplif=
iers for the sake of higher fidelity. We are chasing higher bit rate in fal=
se hope of being able to recreate the true essence of live music in our roo=
m. Yet, we show resistance to Ambio.=20

Most of us listen to music alone. So the sweet spot is still the same and d=
oesnt matter. For those who listen in a group then maybe Ambio is not the a=
nswer.

Looking at myself, I was very reluctant to try Ambio at the beginning for =
the same reasons as stated by Gary. Furthermore, I thought it would make me=
an outcast in the world of audiophiles for the different approach.=20

So what are we really after? Musical enjoyment or the unwritten rules as to=
how we should achieve them?




On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:28:07 PM UTC+8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
snipped for brevity
=20
=20
The simplest explanation of why it hasn't caught on is that it requires=
=20
=20
additional complexity beyond normal stereo listening. You have to purchas=
e=20
=20
the components (not heavily advertised) to convert the signals, and you h=
ave=20
=20
to sit in the sweet spot to make it work. Not real suitable for sharing t=
he=20
=20
playback experience.
=20
=20
=20
Gary Eickmeier

[Audio_Empire]

In article ,
STC wrote:

It is not exactly true that we need a separate component. I have tried with
IPod and PC using their ambiophonics software or players with good results.
Currently, the low cost component is about US120 and it is good enough for my
SACD player without any perceivable loss of resolution.

I have to agree that the best performance is sitting at the sweet spot but
then even stereo setup requires a sweet spot. As I was listening to
Sheffields Test CD -Walkaround, I noticed that the centre was way off to the
left. I never noticed this flaw in the stereo setup before.

If our purpose of High Fidelity is the ability to bring out the best from the
recording then why are we ignoring the obvious improvement. We forego the the
convenience of integrated amplifiers for separate power and preamplifiers for
the sake of higher fidelity. We are chasing higher bit rate in false hope of
being able to recreate the true essence of live music in our room. Yet, we
show resistance to Ambio.

Most of us listen to music alone. So the sweet spot is still the same and
doesnt matter. For those who listen in a group then maybe Ambio is not the
answer.

Looking at myself, I was very reluctant to try Ambio at the beginning for
the same reasons as stated by Gary. Furthermore, I thought it would make me
an outcast in the world of audiophiles for the different approach.

So what are we really after? Musical enjoyment or the unwritten rules as to
how we should achieve them?




On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:28:07 PM UTC+8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
snipped for brevity


The simplest explanation of why it hasn't caught on is that it requires

additional complexity beyond normal stereo listening. You have to purchase

the components (not heavily advertised) to convert the signals, and you
have

to sit in the sweet spot to make it work. Not real suitable for sharing the

playback experience.



Gary Eickmeier

I tried Ambiophonics a number of years ago. It reminded me too much of
the matrix-style "quadraphonic sound of the 1970's . Even with "Steering
Logic" And later with Dolby "Pro Logic", I was never fond of it.

It's not a question of " do we want High-Fidelity" but rather a question
of does a surround process further that goal. In my opinion it does not.
Sitting in a "sweet spot" is not realistic and sound emanating from 4
(or 5) channels is also not realistic, at least, not to me. SACD was
available with multiple channels and even that didn't do what *I*
wanted it to do - which is to say reproduce the ambience and sound of a
good hall and do it realistically.

It's hard enough to get two-channel stereo right (again IMHO) without
going of f on a tangent to try to reproduce the ambience of a hall. I
used to have a device from Philips that had built-in "hall algorithms"
it purported to take the two-channel stereo signal in and output
4-channels with the sound of a certain hall overlaid on it. Some of the
"halls" it supposedly mimicked were Carnegie Hall in NYC, The
Concergetbouw in Amsterdam, Royal Albert Hall in London, Symphony Hall
in Boston etc. I Thought it did a much better job than any Quadraphonic
or Ambiphonic or other multi-channel recording I ever heard. And still,
it had a problem. The recordings, unless they were recorded on an
acoustically dead soundstage - the way movie soundtracks are generally
recorded ('Ben-Hur's' soundtrack sounded great when "played" in Carnegie
Hall!) merely added the algorithm ambience to that of the hall where the
recording was made. Sometimes that was pleasant, and sometimes it
wasn't. If the Philips box hadn't died, I'd likely still be using it!

Don't misunderstand me here, I think Dolby or DTS sound for films is
excellent, it's just music that I don't think is well served by most of
the surround recording formats that I've heard.

[STC]

In response to Audio Empire,

In two channel Ambiophonics, no reprocessing takes place when we use a physical barrier. RACE software has now replaced the barrier. Let's ignore RACE and confine to the physical barrier. It definitely brings out realistic or better ambience in stereo recordings. Drums sound natural with better transient something which I never managed to get with stereo.

May I know how you implemented Ambiophonics when you tried years ago? I too tried and failed for so many years because I did not bring the speakers close enough to be within the recommended 20 to 30 degrees. Now, after a better understanding with speakers within 21 degrees I can say it is an experience that stereo system cannot match.

[Audio_Empire]

In article ,
STC wrote:

In response to Audio Empire,

In two channel Ambiophonics, no reprocessing takes place when we use a
physical barrier. RACE software has now replaced the barrier. Let's ignore
RACE and confine to the physical barrier. It definitely brings out realistic
or better ambience in stereo recordings. Drums sound natural with better
transient something which I never managed to get with stereo.

I find that most recordings are not made correctly. That's why they
don't sound right. Two channel Ambisonics uses a microphone setup that
is fairly close to a coincident pair, except that it is made up of a
series of mikes arranged in a "spherical" configuration consisting of 3
figure-of-eight microphones and an omnidirectional microphone. By
matrix-mixing these four mikes, many different pickup patterns are
possible. A special Ambisonics mike used to be available with it's own
matrixing controller called a "soundfield" mike. But I don't know if
that's still true. The two channel Ambisonics can be approximated by
using a pair of figure-of-eight mikes in an X-Y configuration.

May I know how you implemented Ambiophonics when you tried years ago? I too
tried and failed for so many years because I did not bring the speakers close
enough to be within the recommended 20 to 30 degrees. Now, after a better
understanding with speakers within 21 degrees I can say it is an experience
that stereo system cannot match.

I had a UHJ decoder by the British firm Bothroyd-Stuart back in the late
1970's and I have a number of UHJ encoded records from record companies
like Nimbus and Unicorn (I still listen to a Unicor UHJ recording of
"The Film Music of Dmitri Tiomkin" which I enjoy for it's natural (but
somewhat distant) perspective.

I think I was unimpressed because (1) I was using my "quadraphonic
sound" speaker arrangement, and (2) the UHJ decoder was a simple matrix
decoder with no steering logic, so separation was minimal.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 11:52:50 AM UTC-4, STC wrote:
Anyone here using Ambiophonics for their dedicated setup? After many year=
s of trying with physical barrier between the speakers to implement ambio I=
am now using DSP method and very much pleased with the sound. It did let m=
e down on a few albums but overall excellent recordimgs especially live Jaz=
z and classical music sounded very much closer to being there. I am wonderi=
ng why it hasn't caught up. I find that serious music lovers are so relucta=
nt to even experiment with it and hardly any serious discussing about it in=
RAHE. I find a lot of critism but hardly anyone ever attempted to listen i=
n a proper setup other than a few quick trials using PC which hardly a true=
representation of what it could do in a proper room setup. I have seen som=
e contributors compared it to Carver's Holo amplifiers and others but could=
not find any constructive critism of the weakness of Ambiophonics except f=
or the sitting arrangements. Looking forward to hear your feedback on Ambio=
phonics from you guys.

It is always difficult to launch a new technology. Going to Ambiophonics i=
s like switching from black and white photography to color. Many regard bl=
ack and white photography as an art form and so it is with 60 degree stereo=
.. The other problem is that none of the mainstream magazines like Stereoph=
ile are explaining how to use Amnbiophonics. When stereo first appeared in=
the fifties all the magazines had articles on how to set up the speakers, =
mount cartridges, run wires, get multiples tuners, check speaker polarity, =
etc. Finally, if all one listens to are solo guitars or a guitar with a vo=
calist, one does not need Ambiophonics or stereo and indeed should listen u=
sing one speaker so as to avoid the combing, ITD,ILD, and pinna direction f=
inding pattern distortions of the stereo loudspeaker arrangement.

The listening area limitation is a bit of an urban myth. In stereo if you =
move forward you get a hole in the middle. If you move back you get mono. =
In Ambio if you move very far forward you get normal stereo, if you move b=
ack nothing much happens. So I often have five listeners at once at my dem=
os. In stereo if you move to the side you pretty much hear just one channe=
l. (That is one main reason why they needed the center speaker in 5.1 video=
..) In Ambio if you move to the side you hear both channels clearly (great =
mono without combing) and this is true almost anywhere in the room. With f=
our speaker Ambiophonics you get a great feeling of space anywhere between =
the front and rear speaker pairs and in movies you still have front to rear=
localization. Finally with the new personal hi-fi speakers like the Sound=
matters foxl each viewer of a movie can have their own wireless speaker and=
sit anywhere they can see the screen. A common subwoofer supplies the bass=
for all. (Imax used this trick years ago.)

Ralph Glasgal =20